MATTHEW 16: 17 - 19, "The Rock"!

[Exporter]

This is from the 1588 copy of the Douay - Rheims taken from the Vulgate]. Tell me how some people can say, logically, that Jesus is NOT talking to Peter.

"18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.
18 “Thou art Peter”… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

18 “Upon this rock”… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25.

 

[tkdnick]

:clapping: Nice post. I doubt those who are Protestant will necessarily agree with you though.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Hi, Exporter! I think there either in denial or they resent any authority besides God, so much so that they have convinced themselves that they couldn’t have understood that correctly.God Bless

 

[michaelp]

Hey, I am Protestant and I have no problem calling Peter the rock upon which Christ built his Church. Eph tells us that he part of the foundation along with the Apostles and Prophets.

Michael

 

[rlg94086]

Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (*Modesty *21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (*Commentary on Matthew **13:31 [A.D. 248]).

God Bless,

Robert

 

[angel_crooks]

spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews

This made me loose respect for your post! Jewish is a very ancient language and as with all languages should be neutrally respected!

Also I was reading something about THe Rock, St Peter, and apparantly in Aramaic, the word rock is KEpha I think it said, also another issue is that there were two different dialects of Greek used. But the author did say that in Aramaic and in English and in one of the Greeks, St Peter is definately the Rock and the first Pope. Those who denie this are the typical non Cath fundy who has been brainwashed not to reserach history and they therefore denie historical facts!

 

[Vincent]

angel_crooks:

This made me loose respect for your post! Jewish is a very ancient language and as with all languages should be neutrally respected!

I think “vulgar” in that context refers to vernacular, not indecent. It comes from the same Latin root from which we get the word Vulgate. Yes, it’s an archaic use of the term.

 

[mercygate]

angel_crooks:

This made me loose respect for your post! Jewish is a very ancient language and as with all languages should be neutrally respected!

Relax! Vulgar here doesn’t mean “vulgar” as in “crass” – it means the common language as opposed to priestly or scholarly language. The most frequent occurrence of the form is when we refer to the “Vulgate” Bible. Feel better? :bounce:

 

[Sei]

Alright, so lets break this down here. The verses in question are:
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Well, first of all we should just recap what’s going on here. Jesus is asking Peter who he thinks he is. To this Peter responds that he thinks he is the Christ, the son of God. Jesus blesses him and says that is isn’t because of any person that he knows this, but only because of God. Then heres where it gets crazy. He says that he’s Peter, and upon this rock he’ll build his church. Well, lets look at some things first to figure out whats going on.

If you go to John 1:42 you see something interesting. It says:
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

So Jesus calls Simon Peter Cephas, which means a stone or a rock. Alright, so Jesus really did call Peter a rock. That’s fine because that actually helps.

Go to the original Greek that the New Testament was translated from. What word do they use for Cephas in John 1:42? They use πετρος. If you don’t have that font it looks like netpoc. So if we go to Matthew it should be the same word for both places because it should read, technically “you are a rock, and upon this rock I will…”

Well, when Jesus say’s “Peter” the word used is πετρος or netpoc. Is it the same further down the sentence? No, it’s πετρα or netpa. The first is masculine, the second is feminine. Jesus isn’t talking about Peter because he uses a different word. Unless Peter suddenly turned into a girl or Jesus is a really funny joker but I’m sure that isn’t the case.

Furthermore, a littler farther down in verse 23 Jesus horribly rebukes Peter, calling him satan and saying he savours the things of men and not of God. Harsh words for someone that he supposedly just made the first pope and made infallible, don’t you think? Maybe he wasn’t talking about Peter. In that context, maybe he was talking about who Peter had said in verse 16. Jesus saying the himself is the rock that he’ll found his church on? Sounds fairly reasonable, seeing as how he is the only way. So if that were so, wouldn’t other writers have called Jesus the rock? Well you’re lucky because they did:

"… for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4

“For who is God save the LORD? or ***who is a rock save our God?” ***Psalm 18:31 "… I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock…" Deuteronomy 32:3-4

"Truly my soul waiteth upon God… He only is my rock…" Psalm 62:1-2

"But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge." Psalm 94:22

He’s even called the cornerstone:

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:20

"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." Psalm 118:22

Even Peter calls him the cornerstone:

"…by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth… This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts 4:10-11 "… the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner," 1 Peter 2:7

Jesus was not talking about Peter, he was talking about himself. God is the only way and the only one that is infallible, not a sinfull man of this earth. People tend to undermine that and forget that in this time.

 

[Maccabees]

michaelp:

Hey, I am Protestant and I have no problem calling Peter the rock upon which Christ built his Church. Eph tells us that he part of the foundation along with the Apostles and Prophets.

Michael

Thanks that if a fair asessment of the passage many protestant schoalrship exegesis of scriptures now say Peter is the Rock the church was builded upon. I think its is simply protestant overreaction to simply not consider that interpretation as being valid.

 

[Maccabees]

Sei:

…
Jesus was not talking about Peter, he was talking about himself. God is the only way and the only one that is infallible, not a sinfull man of this earth. People tend to undermine that and forget that in this time.

IF God is the only one that is infalliable why is that he didn’t write the scripture himself and why didn’t he canonize the scripture himself he relied on men like Peter, James and John etc to write these books you think are infalliable if men cannot produce something infalliable how it is the new testament is infalliable they
were written by men and books that were considered scripture were determined from other books by the catholic church through church council were attended by men to determine the canon. How do we know the scipture we know have is really inspired if it were written by men and determined by men. Jesus did not write the books nor was in attendance in the flesh at the councils.

 

[Vincent]

Sei:

Well, when Jesus say’s “Peter” the word used is πετρος or netpoc. Is it the same further down the sentence? No, it’s πετρα or netpa. The first is masculine, the second is feminine. Jesus isn’t talking about Peter because he uses a different word. Unless Peter suddenly turned into a girl or Jesus is a really funny joker but I’m sure that isn’t the case.

Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ were synonyms by the time this passage was written. Moreover, as Jimmy Akin explains, stylistic variation can account for the use of the two terms instead of just one.

Furthermore, a littler farther down in verse 23 Jesus horribly rebukes Peter, calling him satan and saying he savours the things of men and not of God. Harsh words for someone that he supposedly just made the first pope and made infallible, don’t you think?

The Catholic understanding of the papacy and papal infallibility isn’t incompatible with Jesus’s rebuke. Impeccability is incompatible, but the Catholic Church doesn’t claim that of the papacy.

You might be unaware that the Catholic position allows three interpretations of ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ: Peter, Jesus, and Peter’s confession of faith. The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary agrees insofar as it gives Peter as a possible referent.

 

[Sei]

God did write the scripture. All those men were talking and writing by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is divinely inspired and says nothing that God didn’t want it to say. He said his word is pure and truth and he would preserve it. If you say that we can’t be sure if today’s bible is accurate or inspired then you’re calling God a liar. If Jesus meant for Peter to be the rock He would have made no confusion on the topic and He wouldn’t have used a different word. He did that so that we’d know he wasn’t talking about anyone but himself. If Peter is the rock then why is it never talked about again at all through scripture? And why is any mention of a rock tagged on to Jesus alone? Peter being the rock is based on one poorly translated and misunderstood verse in scripture and nothing else. And the NIV bible can’t be taken too seriously seeing as how hundreds of verses are completely missing from the bible.

Edit: Also, if the word isn’t inspired and we can’t be sure anymore then how come that unsureity doesn’t carry over to the verse in question? Or does that magically skip over that verse because if we were unsure of inspiration then that would mean the pope could be completely unbiblical according to scripture? Why can I name many verses where Jesus is called the rock and foundation and there is only one verse where He could either be talking about himself or possibly Peter. Why aren’t there more verses to support it? And if Peter is the rock, then you’re calling the men that called Jesus the rock liars, the Holy Spirit a liar, and possibly Jesus. Who would you rather call a liar? The writers of scripture, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus? or sinful men of this earth?

“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” matthew 15:9

“And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:9

 

[mercygate]

Sei:

God did write the scripture. All those men were talking and writing by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is divinely inspired and says nothing that God didn’t want it to say. He said his word is pure and truth and he would preserve it.

This is Catholic teaching. Moreover, God promises that he will preserve it from error through his Church.

. . . If Jesus meant for Peter to be the rock He would have made no confusion on the topic and He wouldn’t have used a different word.

Only anti-Romans find this to be confusing. The grammar is clear. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

. . .If Peter is the rock then why is it never talked about again at all through scripture? And why is any mention of a rock tagged on to Jesus alone? Peter being the rock is based on one poorly translated and misunderstood verse in scripture and nothing else. . . .

It is not poorly translated or misunderstood. The grammar is perfectly clear.

. . . Why can I name many verses where Jesus is called the rock and foundation and there is only one verse where He could either be talking about himself or possibly Peter. Why aren’t there more verses to support it? And if Peter is the rock, then you’re calling the men that called Jesus the rock liars, the Holy Spirit a liar, and possibly Jesus. Who would you rather call a liar? The writers of scripture, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus? or sinful men of this earth?

You are correct here. God and Jesus ARE the rock and foundation – of the world and everything in it. Peter and the apostles are the secondary rock and foundation of the Church, standing on the Rock of Christ. It is not EITHER Jesus OR Peter who is the rock. Peter stands on the rock of Christ – as he himself states emphatically in I Peter 2:6-9. I find it most compelling that the one whom Jesus called “the rock,” so emphatically points to Christ as the rock and cornerstone in his epistle – just as the Lord knew he would.

Let’s turn your challenge around: If Peter is not the rock, then you are calling Jesus a liar.

 

[liber8ed217]

IF Peter is the Rock of which the church is built upon… then why does the Bible say that God is the ONLY Rock…

Do not be startled or afraid.
Have I not told you and declared it long ago?
You are my witnesses!
Is there any God but Me?
There is no [other] Rock; I do not know any.* — Isaiah 44:8*

Peter professed His faith in the deity of Christ— that is the ROCK of the Church–> Jesus Christ and no other.

 

[RSiscoe]

Sei:

God did write the scripture. All those men were talking and writing by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is divinely inspired and says nothing that God didn’t want it to say.

I think his point was that God used men to write the infallible scriptures, just as he uses a man (the Pope) to make infallible statements. If you accept the fact that God could use men to write infallibly, why do you deny that he can use a man to define a doctrine infallibly?

And if you do deny that God uses the Pope to define doctrinal matters infallibly, what do you base your belief in the inherency of the 27 books of the New Testament on? Why do you accept them? Where does the Bible give us an inspired list of books that belong in it? It doesn’t. So why do you accept 27 books only and not St. Paul epistle to the Church of Laodecia, or the Didache, for example? There was disagreement in the early years of the Church as to exactly which books belonged in the Canon. Some rejected the apocalypse (Revelation) and Hebrews, while others accepted the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache. The Bible did not come ready made, bound with a leather cover. The New Testament is made up of various letter that were written in the early years. How do you know for certain that the 27 books that are now in are Bible are inspired? How do you know the correct books were selected for the Bible? Who had the authority to decide INFALLIBLY which books were Canonical? And why do you accept the 27 books that were selected?

He said his word is pure and truth and he would preserve it. If you say that we can’t be sure if today’s bible is accurate or inspired then you’re calling God a liar.

I agree that the Bible is inspired and 100% accurate, but how do you even know which books belong in the bible? You seem to think that people have always been able to walk into a store and purchase a leather-bound Bible containing all 27 books of the New Testament. That is not the case. In the early years the books of the New Testament were individual letters. There were also forgeries and apocryphal writings floating around. Who had the authority to sift through all of these books and determine which were true and which were not?

Someone determined once and for all which books belonged in the Bible and the case was closed. Who was that?

If Jesus meant for Peter to be the rock He would have made no confusion on the topic and He wouldn’t have used a different word.

He didn’t. He used the same word: “Kepha”. The two Greek words, Petra and Petros, are also the same word, but one has a feminine ending, while the other has a maculine ending; but the word is the same. Even the Protestant Strong’s concordance says that are the same. The definition starts out by saying that Petros is “the same as” Petra. It was not two completely different words, but the same word with a different ending. The writer could not call Peter “Petra” since it was a fenimine word. Therefore, he translated the same word with a masculine ending: thus we have the word “Petros”.

He did that so that we’d know he wasn’t talking about anyone but himself. If Peter is the rock then why is it never talked about again at all through scripture? And why is any mention of a rock tagged on to Jesus alone?

Peter’s name MEANS rock. How can you say Peter is never again called rock when his name was changed from Simon to rock? Peter means rock!

“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” matthew 15:9

“And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:9

Why do you follow the “traditions of men that maketh void the word of God”? Protestants reject apostolic Tradition, which the Bible places on an equal level with the written word of God. Why do you reject Tradition in favor of “Sola Scriptura”, the Protestant heresy?

The Bible tells us to “hold fast to the Traditions which you have received, whether by word of mouth or by epistle” (2 Thes 2:14,15)

If you believe the “Bible alone” is the sole authority, you are rejecting what the Bible clearly teaches in favor of a “tradition of men”.

My question to you is this: Do you believe 2 The 2:14,15? If so you must admit that Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a heresy. And if you do not believe what the Bible clearly says in 2 Thes 2:14,15, then you are a heretic. Which is it?

If it is the latter then I can understand why you would be unable to realize that Peter (whose name means rock) is the rock Jesus was referring to.

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

As someone still learning their way around the Faith; I found this site very informative.
iamonetruth.com/peter___rock.htm

 

[Vincent]

Sei:

If you say that we can’t be sure if today’s bible is accurate or inspired then you’re calling God a liar.

The Catholic Church teaches that “we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

If Jesus meant for Peter to be the rock He would have made no confusion on the topic and He wouldn’t have used a different word.

Catholics claim that Peter is one of the referents for this rock and don’t see a confusion. It’s easy to see why: Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ were synonyms in the first century.

Then why use both?

First, it’s obvious that Πέτρος is fittingly used as Simon’s name since it’s masculine. Second, using two terms to avoid repetition is commonly used for stylistic variation (we use pronouns for the same reason). Third, πέτρᾳ indicates the context of how the name Πέτρος is being used: here Jesus is showing why he specifically names him Πέτρος, when previously he called him Κηφᾶς.

Moreover, your criticism is double-edged: if Jesus didn’t mean for Simon to be the rock then Jesus wouldn’t have given him the rocky name, Πέτρος so close to the rocky term, πέτρᾳ. He wouldn’t even have given Simon the rocky name, Κηφᾶς, for that reason.

If Peter is the rock then why is it never talked about again at all through scripture?

Since Κηφᾶς is identified as Πέτρος, and Πέτρος is a synonym of πέτρᾳ, then it is talked about again in Scripture. By my count, Paul uses it six times.

And why is any mention of a rock tagged on to Jesus alone?

Any mention? You’ve already asserted that Κηφᾶς and Πέτρος mean rock: “So Jesus calls Simon Peter Cephas, which means a stone or a rock. Alright, so Jesus really did call Peter a rock. That’s fine because that actually helps.”

Maybe the question should be, why does Jesus, the “Rock,” give Simon the name of “Rock”?

 

[mtr01]

Sei:

Alright, so lets break this down here. The verses in question are:
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Well, first of all we should just recap what’s going on here. Jesus is asking Peter who he thinks he is. To this Peter responds that he thinks he is the Christ, the son of God. Jesus blesses him and says that is isn’t because of any person that he knows this, but only because of God. Then heres where it gets crazy. He says that he’s Peter, and upon this rock he’ll build his church. Well, lets look at some things first to figure out whats going on.

If you go to John 1:42 you see something interesting. It says:
And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

So Jesus calls Simon Peter Cephas, which means a stone or a rock. Alright, so Jesus really did call Peter a rock. That’s fine because that actually helps.

Go to the original Greek that the New Testament was translated from. What word do they use for Cephas in John 1:42? They use πετρος. If you don’t have that font it looks like netpoc. So if we go to Matthew it should be the same word for both places because it should read, technically “you are a rock, and upon this rock I will…”

Well, when Jesus say’s “Peter” the word used is πετρος or netpoc. Is it the same further down the sentence? No, it’s πετρα or netpa. The first is masculine, the second is feminine. Jesus isn’t talking about Peter because he uses a different word. Unless Peter suddenly turned into a girl or Jesus is a really funny joker but I’m sure that isn’t the case.

The problem is that in Greek “πετρα” (petra or rock) is a femine noun. Therefore it was inappropriate to give as a man’s name. Therefore “πετρος” (petros or stone) which is a male noun was used. The change in nouns was simply to maintain gender agreement. It should also be noted that in the dialect of Greek in which the Gospels were written, stone was always written using the word “lithos” instead of “petros”.

Your mistake here is in equating the Greek of the written Gospel with the language that our Lord Jesus spoke. It is apparent from the source you cite (i.e. John’s Gospel) that He spoke Aramaic: Peter’s name is given as “Cephas” (St. Paul also refers to him as such) which is the Greek transliteration of “kepha”, the Aramian word for Rock (which is a neuter noun). Thus, using the true Aramaic word, Matt. 16:18 would read “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church”.
The word would be the same, and the meaning is transparent. As Karl Keating has also pointed out, other vernacular translations of the Bible are instructive. French Bibles, for instance, use “pierre” in both places in Matt 16:18. The petra/petros issue is and example of twisting the plain meaning of the words in order to derive a self-serving interpretation which is contrary to true doctrine.

Sei:

Jesus was not talking about Peter, he was talking about himself. God is the only way and the only one that is infallible, not a sinfull man of this earth. People tend to undermine that and forget that in this time.

Likewise, your interpretation of this verse is not infallible. Using the plain meaning of the words, and the language actually spoken by Jesus himself, it is clear that He was in fact referring to Peter.

 

[Sei]

The traditions talked about in 2 Thess are the traditions the apostles taught in there books and epistles. Look at what the purpose of Thess was. It was a letter, to a church, consisting of believers. Were any of the catholic traditions already in place at that time? No. So what other traditions could he have meant when he said that but the traditions already taught. The catholic church is based so heavily on traditions. They even try to say that the church traditions and the pope’s word are on the same level of authority as God’s word. If we’re to get all that we know from the pope as well as God’s word, why was this verse written?

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it **not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, **the word of God…" 1 Thessalonians 2:13

And if the pope is infallible, why were these verses written?

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Romans 3:23 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10

Does it say “there is none righteous, no, not one, except the pope”? No, it doesn’t. And the pope wants you to call him holy? Then what about this verse?

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy…" Revelation 15:4

Or even this one?

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another…" Isaiah 42:8

The catholic doctrine says this about the pope:

“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” Pg. 234, #882

“The Roman Pontiff… as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful…” Pg. 235, #891

But this is what the bible says:

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 14:26

"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…" John 16:13

If the pope is the vicar of christ, then wouldn’t they have many simularities? Why does the pope control one of the wealthiest corporations in the world when Jesus never controlled great wealth? Why is the pope dressed in regal garments when Jesus dressed as a common man? Why does the pope live in lavish sourangings while Jesus lived a simple life? Why does the pope travel on his private jet to meet with leaders when Jesus spent his time serving the people? Why is the pope worshiped and adorned by millions when Jesus was hated and eventually killed for speaking the truth? Why does the pope love the glory and praise of men when Jesus directed it all to his Father? Maybe because there is no sinfull man of this earth that could ever represent Jesus Christ.

And what about praying, bowing down to, and worshiping not only the pope but to saints and Mary and even statues?

“Thou shalt not make unto thee ***any graven image, ***or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” Exodus 20:4

“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…” Exodus 20:5

And you can’t say that praying to a saint or mary is for mediation because of this verse:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, ***the man Christ Jesus;” ***1 Timothy 2:5

Theres so much more I can’t even write it all down here. All these things are the traditions of man, made after Thess. The writer wasn’t talking about these traditions. And by following some of them, you’re horribly going against God. I say again:

“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” matthew 15:9

“And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:9